Editorial: Extension Service valuable

Saturday, June 28, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

A few outspoken legislators would like to turn the clock back to 1914 when it comes to Cooperative Extension. They want this organization, which now serves practically everyone in the state, to retrench itself, to serve only those interests that have to do with cows and chickens, cooking, gardening and homemaking.

In Clark County, reverting to this outdated interpretation of Cooperative Extension would mean serving perhaps only 10 percent of the population.

Is there a good reason for such a radical dismantling? Cooperative Extension over the decades has always engaged itself fully in programs that could explode in a shower of negative publicity. Think of how often other social service programs become mired in controversy. Yet Extension calmly and professionally goes about its duties of serving families, aggravating no one while earning praise from all quarters.

So we say there is no good reason for such talk from a few Assembly members these days. There is no good reason to pummel Cooperative Extension as a bloated bureaucracy filled with overpaid staff members turning their backs on their founding mission, which in 1914 was to bring the latest agricultural information out to frontier farmers and ranchers.

But in 1997, is there a reason for public debate about Cooperative Extension, whose mission has evolved along with the communities it serves? Absolutely. This is a critical service -- using $4 million in public funds in Clark County -- that has a tremendous impact on the public good. (See today's article on Cooperative Extension for a sample of urban programs.) Therefore, of course, it should at all times be a topic for public discussion.

But let's keep the discussion on a level that serves a good purpose, on a level that moves us forward, not backward. Legislators who pounce on the law creating the "Cooperative Agricultural Extension" and cry "Ahaa!" as if they are exposing the natural evolution of Extension as a big scandal, serve no one.

Of course Extension has evolved over the years, just as the Legislature has evolved. If the Legislature weren't involved in a lot more things now than it was in 1914, its session would take a few weeks as opposed to six months.

The Nevada Farm Bureau, which started this latest debate about Cooperative Extension, has a good point. There should be no argument with the bureau's point that ranchers and farmers, particularly those in Nevada's rural counties, need more assistance.

So what is needed is intelligent discussion about how Cooperative Extension might adjust its programming to provide greater service to rural areas. And that's just what appears to be happening as a result of the debate. Instead of heeding the calls for hurtling Cooperative Extension backward in time, all parties involved appear heading for a reasonable accommodation.

We applaud the Farm Bureau, Cooperative Extension and the Legislature for its agreement to work together on a report due for release in a year. This means the problem has been identified and there's every chance for an amiable solution far short of destroying a resource that today serves all Nevadans.